Ellen Stuttle

Knowledge vs. Dogma - "Infinitesimal"

Recommended Posts

Michael writes:

look at the arguing style and I see Dennis presenting his premises and I see Naomi snarking and yukking it up.

I wonder if they give master's degrees in snark and snigger. Based on what comes out of academia these days, that seems to be the main didactic system in use.

That attitude is a product of today's liberal government subsidized university self esteem curriculum.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at the arguing style and I see Dennis presenting his premises and I see Naomi snarking and yukking it up.

I wonder if they give master's degrees in snark and snigger. Based on what comes out of academia these days, that seems to be the main didactic system in use.

MIchael

Sometimes, a snark is worth a thousand words. :wink:

True enough, but to whom for what?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at the arguing style and I see Dennis presenting his premises and I see Naomi snarking and yukking it up.

I wonder if they give master's degrees in snark and snigger. Based on what comes out of academia these days, that seems to be the main didactic system in use.

MIchael

Sometimes, a snark is worth a thousand words. :wink:

Naomi,

I wish they would at least teach people at your school how to do it competently.

Judging the tree by the fruit, I conclude they teach kindergarten level snark and snigger.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you achieve my snarking level you're so good you don't consciously know you're snarking, but my victims know, so I smile as they drown in my swimming pool (I can't swim well enough to save them and forgot to stock up on life preservers [how convenient!]). :smile:

--Brant

saves the conscience :smile:

the cries of the damned go up forever and ever :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that dennislmay is confused about even the most basic claims and concepts of relativity theory.

That's giving me a really good laugh, somewhat counteracting depression at the enthusiastic turn-out Gore got in Hawaii - according to a news item Adam posted on another thread.

(Lest anyone misunderstand what I'm laughing about, I'm laughing about Naomi's assessment of Dennis' knowledge of relativity theory.)

Ellen

If your doctor couldn't tell the difference between your kidney and your gull bladder, and I pointed that out to you, would you find that funny?

This dude just screwed up on what is literally the very first thing any undergraduate learns in introductory SR, and he's not even denying it. That should be a huge red flag that he's a crank.

Naomi, I've been reading Dennis' material for 14 years, starting on the old Atlantis list, and then on Dennis' own physics lists, and I know a reasonable amount about physics myself. I'm aware that Dennis isn't denying what undergraduates learn in introductory SR. But just because undergraduates are taught something doesn't make the something correct.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at the arguing style and I see Dennis presenting his premises and I see Naomi snarking and yukking it up.

Her questions 1-5 in post #69 are good questions (although Dennis can answer them).

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arguments do not disprove theories. Empirically busted predictions disprove theories.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Not without argument to demonstrate the cruciality of the failed predictions to the theory.

Ellen

PS: You didn't answer post #62.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naomi, I've been reading Dennis' material for 14 years, starting on the old Atlantis list, and then on Dennis' own physics lists, and I know a reasonable amount about physics myself.

That's nice.

I'm aware that Dennis isn't denying what undergraduates learn in introductory SR. But just because undergraduates are taught something doesn't make the something correct.

Ellen

Whether or not what undergraduates are taught is correct is not the issue here, though. What I said was that Dennis made an extremely elementary mistake about the content of SR. Which is a serious problem when you're supposedly an expert on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you simply restate his "mistake" and see how he responds when there's no place to hide.

--Brant

and it would help us lay people follow this discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you simply restate his "mistake" and see how he responds when there's no place to hide.

--Brant

and it would help us lay people follow this discussion

What he said was that quantum entanglement contradicts SR because it is a superluminal effect.

However, SR does not forbid superluminal effects that don't transport matter or radiation. For example, shadows can travel many times faster than light. But shadows are neither matter nor radiation, and thus, their superluminal speeds don't contradict SR. Similarly, quantum entanglement does not involve the transport of photons or any other particles between the entangled particles. Hence, its superluminality does not contradict SR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wonders then how fast gravity travels except it has already travelled. No?

--Brant

I find your shadow statement dubious for obvious reasoning, but at this level of physics obvious is hard to come by

a shadow is merely light blocked at x point--the light preceeding is still there going to wherever and after there is no more light to be received then you have the shadow or a defined lack of light and all at the speed of light unexceeded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wonders then how fast gravity travels except it has already travelled. No?

--Brant

I find your shadow statement dubious for obvious reasoning, but at this level of physics obvious is hard to come by

a shadow is merely light blocked at x point--the light preceeding is still there going to wherever and after there is no more light to be received then you have the shadow or a defined lack of light and all at the speed of light unexceeded

If you shine a flashlight at a very distant wall, and then you walk in front of the flashlight, the edge of your shadow will appear to travel across the wall at a velocity that's higher than yours. If you run past the flashlight at a velocity close to the speed of light, the edge of your shadow will appear to move at many times the speed of light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware that Dennis isn't denying what undergraduates learn in introductory SR. But just because undergraduates are taught something doesn't make the something correct.

Ellen

Whether or not what undergraduates are taught is correct is not the issue here, though. What I said was that Dennis made an extremely elementary mistake about the content of SR. Which is a serious problem when you're supposedly an expert on the subject.

What you said was:

This dude just screwed up on what is literally the very first thing any undergraduate learns in introductory SR, and he's not even denying it. That should be a huge red flag that he's a crank.

If the correctness of what undergraduates are taught isn't an issue from your standpoint then you shouldn't have mentioned it, and still less indicated that Dennis' going against what's taught to undergraduates "should be a huge red flag that he's a crank."

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware that Dennis isn't denying what undergraduates learn in introductory SR. But just because undergraduates are taught something doesn't make the something correct.

Ellen

Whether or not what undergraduates are taught is correct is not the issue here, though. What I said was that Dennis made an extremely elementary mistake about the content of SR. Which is a serious problem when you're supposedly an expert on the subject.

What you said was:

This dude just screwed up on what is literally the very first thing any undergraduate learns in introductory SR, and he's not even denying it. That should be a huge red flag that he's a crank.

If the correctness of what undergraduates are taught isn't an issue from your standpoint then you shouldn't have mentioned it, and still less indicated that Dennis' going against what's taught to undergraduates "should be a huge red flag that he's a crank."

Ellen

Of course the correctness of SR is important, but disagreeing with what undergraduates are taught is not Dennis' mistake. Just because he disagrees with something, doesn't mean he doesn't understand it or that he's a crank.

What the issue with respect to his mistake is is that he failed to understand and correctly apply the definition a world-line in SR, which is a basic concept. When someone makes a mistake like that, it shows that they don't know what they're talking about. Furthermore, when they claim that modern physical theories are wrong for reasons that are based on nothing more than their own misunderstanding, that makes them a crank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought a shadow was a perception, not a thing.

I wonder what the subparticles of a shadow are...

:smile:

Michael

Which is exactly right, hence why it can move faster than light, unlike actual things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wonders then how fast gravity travels except it has already travelled. No?

--Brant

I find your shadow statement dubious for obvious reasoning, but at this level of physics obvious is hard to come by

a shadow is merely light blocked at x point--the light preceeding is still there going to wherever and after there is no more light to be received then you have the shadow or a defined lack of light and all at the speed of light unexceeded

If you shine a flashlight at a very distant wall, and then you walk in front of the flashlight, the edge of your shadow will appear to travel across the wall at a velocity that's higher than yours. If you run past the flashlight at a velocity close to the speed of light, the edge of your shadow will appear to move at many times the speed of light.

First we have an unmeasurable "appearance" then an unobservable conjecture. Regardless, since the shadow is nothing we aren't discusing anything.

--Brant

nothing as an imaginary something: there's something trite to that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you achieve my snarking level you're so good you don't consciously know you're snarking (but my victims know, so I smile as they drown in my swimming pool (I can't swim well enough to save them and forgot to stock up on life preservers [how convenient!]). :smile:

--Brant

saves the conscience :smile:

the cries of the damned go up forever and ever :smile:

"Coincidence when traced back far enough, becomes inevitable..."

Essentially, I first came across this statement, if memory serves [upon information and belief], when I opened the pages of a "novel" entitled Serpentine*.

Apparently, it originates here:

Coincidence, if traced far enough back, becomes inevitable. – Hineu

One of the search results opened to coincidence quotes.

Ever since I read Serpentine, by Thomas Thompson. I have been intrigued by what we humans identify as coincidence.

Therefore, I am starting a thread on the concept of "coincidence," coincidentally...

A...

*http://www.amazon.com/Serpentine-Thomas-Thompson/dp/0786707496

With compelling style and suspense this true-crime book reconstructs the bizarre, bloody journey of a mesmerizing but sinister young man named Charles Sobhraj. Sweeping back and forth over half the globe -- from the boulevards of Paris to the slopes of Mount Everest to the underbellies of Bangkok and Hong Kong -- Sobhraj left in his wake a trail of baffling mystery and inexplicable horror. He also led the police of a dozen nations on a chase that ended at least twelve and possibly twenty-four corpses later with a mere seven-year prison sentence in Delhi. Besides offering a riveting narrative of serial murder and a years-long manhunt, this singular volume examines the lives not only of the intelligent, charismatic, conscienceless, and thoroughly dangerous Sobhraj but also of the unsuspecting victims that he drugged, robbed, sometimes tortured, and without a qualm often killed. A chilling tale of deadly coincidences set in exotic, glamorous locales, Serpentine offers a reading experience as frightening as it is unforgettable.

This is the Wiki on Sobhraj:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sobhraj

Bharat Rajpurohit (born April 6, 1944), better known as Charles Sobhraj, is a serial killer of Vietnamese and Indian origin, who preyed on Western tourists throughout Southeast Asia during the 1970s. Nicknamed "The Bikini Killer" and "The Serpent", due to his skill at deception and evasion, Sobhraj allegedly committed at least 12 murders. He was convicted and jailed in India from 1976 to 1997. After his release, he retired as a celebrity in Paris. He returned to Nepal and was arrested and tried there. He was convicted of murder by the Supreme Court of Nepal on August 12, 2004. Sobhraj received a sentence of life imprisonment.[3]

I feel that Biden and a few others qualify on the red highlighted skill set...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you said was:

This dude just screwed up on what is literally the very first thing any undergraduate learns in introductory SR, and he's not even denying it. That should be a huge red flag that he's a crank.

If the correctness of what undergraduates are taught isn't an issue from your standpoint then you shouldn't have mentioned it, and still less indicated that Dennis' going against what's taught to undergraduates "should be a huge red flag that he's a crank."

Ellen

Just excellent work Ellen.

I am not comfortable when I am on the other end of it, however, you do your due diligence.

orsonclapping.gif

As for the educational cripple that we have here, it would be a great path if she:

Would unlearn what she has "learned," as Yoda's wisdom was offered.

Finally, a tabla raza Naomi might be open to hear what Glenn Close explained in a great hospital scene in the Natural, a movie adaptation of a Malamud novel, based on a psycho bitch who stalked an Olympic athlete, if I recall:

Glenn[the good farm woman] responds to his statement that, "Some mistakes you never stop paying for."

Her response is that:

"I believe we have two lives.

[Redford responds with a conversational...what do you mean statement...and she responds with:

"The life you learn with...and the life you live with after you learn."

I found, and find to this day, a daily affirmation.

A...

The life we learn with...and the live we live after we learn."

A...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_%28film%29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Dennis has disappeared in a puff of smoke... I doubt my questions will be answered any time soon...

Ah ... ok

And this is seriously tendered.

You state your odds per the standard American dollar...

I assume you are laying the prohibitive odds of 10* to 1.

Michael can hold the money.

Here is a chance for you to play for real...

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wonders then how fast gravity travels except it has already travelled. No?

--Brant

I find your shadow statement dubious for obvious reasoning, but at this level of physics obvious is hard to come by

a shadow is merely light blocked at x point--the light preceeding is still there going to wherever and after there is no more light to be received then you have the shadow or a defined lack of light and all at the speed of light unexceeded

If you shine a flashlight at a very distant wall, and then you walk in front of the flashlight, the edge of your shadow will appear to travel across the wall at a velocity that's higher than yours. If you run past the flashlight at a velocity close to the speed of light, the edge of your shadow will appear to move at many times the speed of light.

First we have an unmeasurable "appearance" then an unobservable conjecture. Regardless, since the shadow is nothing we aren't discusing anything.

--Brant

nothing as an imaginary something: there's something trite to that

I have no idea what this analogy is supposed to illustrate, but it only holds for a "flashlight" being relatively very close to the moving subject. At optical infinity - say the Sun, as source - the shadow moves at precisely the same velocity on the "wall" as the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael writes:

always thought a shadow was a perception, not a thing.

Yes. A shadow is only a lack of light, and not a thing itself.

In a similar manner evil is not a thing in itself either, but is only a lack of good. Nevertheless, both serve a useful purpose. For without the lack of something, there would be no way for us to perceive, or to know, or to understand, or to gratefully appreciate what that something is.

Take love, for example... :wink:

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant writes:

When you achieve my snarking level you're so good you don't consciously know you're snarking, but my victims know, so I smile as they drown in my swimming pool (I can't swim well enough to save them and forgot to stock up on life preservers [how convenient!]). :smile:

You always seem to have enough concrete ones in stock to throw me...

Alt_Life_jackets_can_be_the_deciding_fac

Greg :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...